However MH has 124 yards rushing, WIlson already has 402. With is a net difference of 278 yards.

So at the moment Hasslebeck has a 484 yards advantage over RW. Or 242 combined yards per game. RW in all liklihood has a good chance at surpassing Hasslebeck's net numbers this year. He also has a good change at having more TD passes.

If you're talking on a pure statistical basis then Wilson is having the best season. His numbers all compare well to Hasselbeck's, he's also a rookie and doesn't have a record breaking effort from a running back to work with (although Lynch is still having a great year). And I'm not sure you have to judge these things on whether a person gets to the Super Bowl. By rights then, one of the cornerbacks in 2005 is having a better year than Richard Sherman because ultimately it led to the big game?

Hass in 2007 was awesome. Mike Holmgren basically came out and told everyonethat we weren't even gonna try and run the ball and still nobody could stop him. We should have won at least 12 games that year.

For me it's too early to say if his season is the best. He's looking good and that's amazing b/c he's a rookie. That 2005 O was pretty solid and quite unstoppable unless the referees were involved. hass had a great season in 2007 when he carried the team on his back w/o a running game. We'll see when the fat lady sings.

Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to completely take the final step. That was done and the final step was taken. The OLine still needs work.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:I have yet to see any inkling of "Spazzlebeck" tendencies with RW. Just sayin'

Right here. I have never seen Wilson, with 2 minutes left to go in the game, look anything less than calm. I have never seen him have a play where the team NEEDS him, throw a ball where it's like "what was that"?

Russell has done everything asked of him this season, even in our losses (at least the past 8 or so games). And in the Bears game? There must have been a streak of 20 or so plays where if he makes one tiny mistake, there goes the ballgame. But no, he drove us all the way down the field, once more than he should've had to, without batting an eye once. He is a straight up BALLER, and I don't want any other QB in the NFL over this kid. None.

As far as impressive performances go, I have to give Hasselbeck's 2007 season top billing for the reasons people have stated above. He had zero run game and had the 2nd most attempts in the league that year. The team really was put on his shoulders, and he led them to the divisional round of the postseason.

Hasselbeck's 2005 season and Wilson's 2012 season may be statistically better, but Hass had more help in '05, as does Wilson right now (and less is being asked of Wilson).

Still, I would put Wilson's 2012 campaign as 3rd, easily, and that's a hell of an impressive thing for a 3rd round rookie to do.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:I have yet to see any inkling of "Spazzlebeck" tendencies with RW. Just sayin'

It wasn't the Hasseltoss, but RDUB nearly ended the Chicago game with a pick to Major Right. Just sayin.

Crap, I forgot about that one. Ehh, he rebounded well though

And for the record, this comes to mind now, when he was engineering the comeback drive in Saint Louis? Before he threw the pick where Anthony McCoy slipped, I remember he threw a pass a little behind a receiver practically STRAIGHT INTO the arms of Janoris Jenkins. Remember I felt sooo lucky that wasn't picked.... Yeah.

Best rookie year? Absolutely and without question but best ever is not even close.

Different era where nearly every rookie stepping on the field is having unbelievable success. The NFL has become a QB friendly environment and the team surrounding Wilson is superior to any team Hasselbeck ever played with. I would also take this receiver core vs anyone prior.

I think Wilson should at least be the best QB in the league and be an all pro at least once before we ignore others accomplishments and what they had to deal with to accomplish their success.

It's not always just about stats. era's and teams that have shifted heavily in favor of the new QB's coming into the league now.

Not to take anything away from the 2007 season - because truly we were 100% reliant on Hasselbeck.

However, it's also worth remembering seven of our ten wins came from within the NFC West at its near worst. Arizona had eight wins, San Fran five and St. Louis three. The other three wins came against a 7-9 Bears team at home, an 8-8 Philly team on the road who was starting AJ Feeley at quarterback and a 9-7 Tampa Bay team on opening day at home.

We were also shut out by Pittsburgh that year, lost to a 0-5 New Orleans team at home, lost to Cleveland, Carolina and a 4-12 Atlanta pre-Matt Ryan.

I think that has to be taken into account when we compare 2005, 2007 and 2012.

Dont get me wrong, i love Russ, but say what you will about stats and all that, Matt lead this team to a superbowl one they should of won, a place it has never been or been to since. When Russ leads us to a Superbowl, ill even consider him the best of all time for Seahawks. Because regardless of stats, thats what you play for is a superbowl and Matt got to it. Yes Matt had help, but so does Wilson now.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Not to take anything away from the 2007 season - because truly we were 100% reliant on Hasselbeck.

However, it's also worth remembering seven of our ten wins came from within the NFC West at its near worst. Arizona had eight wins, San Fran five and St. Louis three. The other three wins came against a 7-9 Bears team at home, an 8-8 Philly team on the road who was starting AJ Feeley at quarterback and a 9-7 Tampa Bay team on opening day at home.

We were also shut out by Pittsburgh that year, lost to a 0-5 New Orleans team at home, lost to Cleveland, Carolina and a 4-12 Atlanta pre-Matt Ryan.

I think that has to be taken into account when we compare 2005, 2007 and 2012.

I totally agree with your point English, but just some small corrections.

First, there are only 6 games within the NFC west that the Hawks would play, so they cannot win 7.

Third, the non NFC-west opponents we won against were Tampa Bay, Cincinnati, Bears, Eagles, and Ravens, while we lost to the (still out of the division, so I'm not counting the Cardinals loss) Steelers, Saints, Browns, Panthers, and Falcons. Still pretty close, and yes, it looks like we were a bit overrated in 2007.

I really do believe our quality of wins has improved so much this year. We have played one of the toughest schedules in the league, no doubt, and we still have a 9-5 record, which does not even come close to how good our team really is.

Third, the non NFC-west opponents we won against were Tampa Bay, Cincinnati, Bears, Eagles, and Ravens, while we lost to the (still out of the division, so I'm not counting the Cardinals loss) Steelers, Saints, Browns, Panthers, and Falcons. Still pretty close, and yes, it looks like we were a bit overrated in 2007.

I really do believe our quality of wins has improved so much this year. We have played one of the toughest schedules in the league, no doubt, and we still have a 9-5 record, which does not even come close to how good our team really is.

Of course, my error. I was acting from memory. Baltimore I think were a 4-5 win team that year too... can't remember what record Cincy had. In hindsight that 2007 was a bit frustrating. Aside from all the injuries, we were a classic 'cock tease' team. Had 10 wins on a vanilla schedule. Beat teams with crappy QB's (Feeley in Philly, Smith for Baltimore, Garcia for TB, Grossman for Chicago... whoever was starting for ARI/SF that year). If memory serves we also faced Todd Collins in the playoffs for Washington.

And then had our arses handed to us by Favre in Green Bay when we started to believe we were onto something.

Got to say... I much prefer this version of the Seahawks to the latter Holmgren days.

Last edited by theENGLISHseahawk on Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If Matt had receivers with the hands of Rice, Baldwin, Tate, and Miller, then the 2005 and 2007 seasons would have been even more impressive. In 2005 it was Engram or Vicious. D-Jack was too up and down, but he was our biggest threat. So it was a hard situation. Mili was also the TE and though he had some team records, they didn't use him much. Holmgren went away from TE plays and substituted more run for 2005. In 2007 it was throw, throw, throw. Matt was deadly accurate, and had such a quick release and mindset. He just looked fast and seemed to excel in that modified hurry-up.

So at this point... I'll go with Matt because he did more with less. Put Matt in his prime on this offense, and I think he surpasses 4000 yards.

Russell has clearly had the most impressive rookie season. Zorn had some very fine moments, and his season in 1979 (I think) was a thing of beauty. Then the broken leg and that was that. RW reminds me so much of Zorn that it's crazy. Small guy who moves so well, throws well with any arm angle and off of either foot, and can run when needed, and hits his receivers in stride. Zorn to Largent was legendary.

Krieg had a chance to put up some more dominant seasons with the trio of Largent, Darryl Turner, and Paul Skansi, but Turner's flameout was epic. He was on pace to break the NFL TD record if he maintained his current pace for 9 seasons I believe. He had like 35 TD's in 3 years. He was a field stretcher the likes of which the Hawks haven't seen sense (well maybe Galloway... but Turner was dang good). Then cocaine took over along with back problems, and vision problems, and that was the end. This team needs a Darryl Turner and Russ will put this argument to rest next season I think.

SharkHawk wrote:Put Matt in his prime on this offense, and I think he surpasses 4000 yards.

I'm not totally sold on this idea. I'm not going to say Matt was a system QB, because he wasn't. But ultimately I think he suited the Holmgren offense down to a tee, which is why he was brought over from Green Bay. I always felt he needed that 'look' from Holmgren on the sideline to bring him in a little bit, to concentrate on all the little intricacies of the scheme. Although he was an ageing QB by the time Holmgren left, I thought he played worse football when the shackles were removed under Mora/Knapp and Carroll/Bates. He tried to do things he couldn't.

One of the best Hasselbeck plays I'll remember was the touchdown to DJ Hackett vs Washington in 2007. Perfect execution of the play Holmgren designed to beat that defense. Laron Landry was playing great football that year and they put a play in for Hasselbeck to look him off, pump and then fire to Hackett. Before the ball was even caught, Hasselbeck was celebrating. He knew the plan had worked, and he executed it to perfection for the touchdown. When he was suddenly put in an offense without such fine tuning and asked to make his own decisions and force things a bit more, he became less effective. It exposed his physical weaknesses.

And I think in this current offense we kind of need Wilson's mobility and arm. It's quick strike. In many ways Wilson is the perfect QB for the time, and Hasselbeck was the perfect QB for Holmgren at that time. I'm not sure either would do as well if the era's were reversed.

Anyone dare comparing the strength of schedule in 2005, 2007 versus 2012? Just curious ...I remember, there was a time when the NFC West was really really weak. I also remember Jon Kitna having a couple of decent years in Seattle ...1999 and 2000 ... It took Matt Hasselback 2-3 years to really look like a decent QB. He was really bad after Mike brought him from Green Bay.

Hasselbeck in 2007 is still the best to me. His efficiency stats weren't close to his 2005 or Wilson, but he had to completely carry that team. His OL and the Hawks' rushing offense were close to the bottom of the league and Matt had to attempt 562 passes (compared to 449 in 2005 and a projected 403 for Wilson over 16 games this year) with a 34 year old Bobby Engram as his best receiver, and the team's offense was still very productive that year only because of Matt.

As a side note, everyone saying 2007 Hasselbeck here should remember this discussion when comparing the three great rookie QBs this year. Wilson and RG3 are more 2005 Hasselbeck; Luck is more 2007 Hasselbeck. You can't rank QBs only by efficiency stats without also considering usage.

i just remember hass running for his life most of the time here and still putting up numbers, not to mention our recievers would drop balls all the time.. the years he had protection, he was pro bowl material. not to mention the superbowl appearance.. so i went with Has, but i suspect RW will demolish all QB records during his career here.

Guys, you're missing the point on why I felt Matt would have hit 4000. He threw plenty of passes. If half of the drops were caught, he likely would have hit that number. See what I'm saying? He had WR's that were incredibly inconsistent. If he just played the same type of game he did, then he'd get more yardage simply due to the fact that guys are actually catching balls. As for my comment on this year's offense.... he played in a similar offense in 2005. Strong RB and decent WR's. But I think this year's WR's have better hands. In Matt's prime, he put the ball on their hands constantly, and the ball wasn't caught enough. His completion percentage even with all the drops is right there with Wilson's. Those balls are caught (or even a portion of them are), his completion percentage goes up, his int's go down (as some were on tips), and his total yardage and more than likely TD's also go up. Matt's numbers skew down due to the receiving corps.

"We don't even need your stupid a-- that much. We can win Super Bowls with retired Kerry f------- Collins right now, and you want to be the highest paid player of all-time? F--- you." - Tical21 to Russell Wilson, 6/30/15

It's a tough oneIf you took away the first 5 games of the season and looked at Wilson's play over the last 9 games and extended that over the course of a season, I'd say no doubt. But those first 5 games simply weren't great.

That said, New England, Detroit, Miami, Chicago x 2, I don't ever remember Hasselbeck driving down the field for a go-ahead TD with <5 minutes left 5 times in a single season (even if 3 of those leads were lost or tied in the end), nor do I ever remember a Hasselbeck-led team putting up 50 points in a single game, let alone 2 in a season (even if Wilson was not the major factor in the Arizona game).

Right now I'd say it's a tie between Wilson and Hasselbeck.It all comes down to this weekend's game. If Wilson can post a 90+ QB rating and a win against the NFL's consensus number 1 defense (even though I still prefer ours), and lead the team to victory against the Rams, then I think it has to go to him, regardless of the playoff results